2012 Presidential Election

Forums:

Does Mitt Romney have any chance to beat Barry? There's the countless mistakes he's made throughout the primary season ("I like to fire people," switching his position every other day, contradicting himself in one sentence (When asked about his superPACs attack ads on Gingrich, in one sentence he said he didn't see any of the ads and then went on to say everything the ad said that was"bad" was actually true)) and then there's the Mormon thing. Would America really elect a Mormon?

I might be doing the same thing. And I'll be doing what I always do every year: anti-incumbent, and for uncontested races I write-in "MILTON STREET", and for judge retainers I always vote NO.

The only thing I ever spend some brainpower on are the ballot questions although historically, MOST Philly voters have never seen a ballot proposal they didn't like, and by default they always vote YES no matter what, which is why City Council always words the questions so that the outcome Council prefers to see happen is phrased in the affirmative.

—

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

I've never understood protest voting. Why bother? I know a single vote doesn't amount to much but a protest vote is completely wasted effort.

I'm not unhappy with our current President. Considering what he was handed and the congress he has had to deal with I think he's doing his job and doing it well. I don't see how any candidate on the Right would improve things.

Oh please. This is Philly. Everywhere except some large pockets in the Northeast pull the straight-party ticket lever by default, punch YES to all the ballot questions and go over to Primos to stuff a hoagie in their face and congratulate themselves on a job well done.

Then we spend the remainder of the office holder's term bit*hing about all the corruption.

The last time this City rose up in anger to oust someone currently holding an office was none-other than Frank Rizzo, the man... the mayor... the legend. Little did Philadelphians know that they voted a crook in to the PA Supreme Court, so OBVIOUSLY the Court found that Philadelphians do not have the right to oust someone they elected after they changed their mind [it was over Rizzo signing in City Council's massive Wage Tax hike to nearly 5%].

Karma eventually did come to save the day. Most of this City Council that did this act which triggered the final straw and the botched recall election were caught up in the big ABSCAM scandal.

—

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

Just to prove my point on what I just said... if you don't know what CleanSweepPA was, it comes as no surprise to me. Just about every nook and cranny in Pennsylvania was swept up in the CleanSweep movement except for one county:

Ours.

—

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

I'm with 2014 York--I think given what Obama was handed, he's done a great job. I think Mitt is the only Republican, if elected, I wouldn't seriously fear. He's basically a Moderate even though the Republicans are having a "who's more Conservative" peeing match.

Ron Paul is just flat out nuts. And a racist. I'd sooner vote for Thad.

—

Former attorney and current CITYSPACE real estate agent extraordinaire

I'm with 2014York and Brooke. I don't know who could have walked into the @#$%storm left behind by GW and righted the ship immediately. PLUS, have you seen how the republican members of congress have stonewalled him on every. single. thing? I know I'm the "that's racist" girl on here...but c'mon...call a spade a spade, yo.

Anyway, I found myself actually like Huntsman before he dropped out. He was at least the most sane of the candidates during the debates. I cannot BELIEVE that Gingrich has gotten as far as he has considering his history. He's a former SPEAKER, yet continues to call other candidates "Washington insiders." He's running on a family values platform, yet he was cheating on his wife while rallying for the impeachment of Clinton after he got busy with Monica Lewinski. He is the textbook definition of a hypocrite yet NO ONE seems to be calling him out on it. So much for that leftist media, eh?

Mitt might have a chance if he gets some better handlers and stops creating the world's dumbest sound bites.

—

Can you see my rolling eyes cresting over York Street as you read this?

The problem with Mitt is that the only way he gets anything done as president is if he gives in to the conservative base of the party at every turn. It doesn't matter if he's more personally moderate, he is what he has to be to get a second term.

—

Ken Milano (before he went and edited this comment out to avoid the consequences of having wrote it) wrote:

Santorum recently had a tweet (in reference to winning primaries in Minnesota and one other state) that went something like, "I can't wait to see the map covered in Santorum!" I think I spit coffee out my nose with that one. I'd like to think he's oblivious, but really I think that he feels like if he just ignores it hard enough it'll go away. That's not going away, dude.

—

Can you see my rolling eyes cresting over York Street as you read this?

Santorum recently had a tweet (in reference to winning primaries in Minnesota and one other state) that went something like, "I can't wait to see the map covered in Santorum!" I think I spit coffee out my nose with that one. I'd like to think he's oblivious, but really I think that he feels like if he just ignores it hard enough it'll go away. That's not going away, dude.

That's a lame excuse. Every president can point and say "Yeah but look what I was given..." He's the president, not Bush. The pointing fingers thing has not got us anywhere.

brooke wrote:

I'm with 2014 York--I think given what Obama was handed, he's done a great job. I think Mitt is the only Republican, if elected, I wouldn't seriously fear. He's basically a Moderate even though the Republicans are having a "who's more Conservative" peeing match.

Ron Paul is just flat out nuts. And a racist. I'd sooner vote for Thad.

The economic crisis happened mainly because of Clinton era home lending changes, according to the experts anyway, but that's the point. If we keep focusing on the excuse and pointing fingers and saying " I side with the Dems (or Rep)" and not voting for the best person, just our mythical "party", we will continue to have these problems.

Once again the president is proposing a budget that spends a lot now and will save money in 15 years, hoping to get tax revenue from this or that etc... Obama is just following the tradition of most presidents. He's not unique. The unique thing about him was the huge wave of popularity he road on his way into office, and he squandered it. He was a rockstar and didn't use it to his advantage and lost momentum.

All these problems where there when he was running, it's not like they popped out of box on the day he took office. He knew what he was asking for, if he didn't, well that's foolish.

Frank Jones wrote:

But two wars and the worst economic crisis since the great depression? Only FDR had it worse coming in.

The economic crisis happened mainly because of Clinton era home lending changes, according to the experts anyway, but that's the point. If we keep focusing on the excuse and pointing fingers and saying " I side with the Dems (or Rep)" and not voting for the best person, just our mythical "party", we will continue to have these problems.

Once again the president is proposing a budget that spends a lot now and will save money in 15 years, hoping to get tax revenue from this or that etc... Obama is just following the tradition of most presidents. He's not unique. The unique thing about him was the huge wave of popularity he road on his way into office, and he squandered it. He was a rockstar and didn't use it to his advantage and lost momentum.

All these problems where there when he was running, it's not like they popped out of box on the day he took office. He knew what he was asking for, if he didn't, well that's foolish.

Frank Jones wrote:

But two wars and the worst economic crisis since the great depression? Only FDR had it worse coming in.

And, in my opinion, he's done a pretty good job with handling them. Mostly ended our engagement in Iraq, beginning to in Afghanistan. The economy looks like it's finally starting to pick up. Plus he killed Binladin - something his predecessor could not manage with more time and a lot more wasted money.

Based on the 3 people left who have a shot at running for President this time around - Obama, Romey, Santorum - I think he is clearly the BEST PERSON for the job.

Based on the 3 people left who have a shot at running for President this time around - Obama, Romey, Santorum - I think he is clearly the BEST PERSON for the job.

How come everyone leaves Ron Paul out? The most recent poll by CNN. "Paul has a net favorability of +8 compared to rivals Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich who have net favorability ratings of - 6, -20, and -38 respectively.

Notably, Congressman Paul also has the highest favorability among non-white voters, men, women, voters under 50, and independent voters compared to his GOP challengers."

Based on the 3 people left who have a shot at running for President this time around - Obama, Romey, Santorum - I think he is clearly the BEST PERSON for the job.

How come everyone leaves Ron Paul out? The most recent poll by CNN. "Paul has a net favorability of +8 compared to rivals Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich who have net favorability ratings of - 6, -20, and -38 respectively.

Notably, Congressman Paul also has the highest favorability among non-white voters, men, women, voters under 50, and independent voters compared to his GOP challengers."

The last election we got cool "Change" posters, this election I'd like some real Change instead of a neat looking slogan and poster.

it doesn't matter who he appeals to in a broad base, he'll never be able to secure his own party's nomination. his international outlook borders on isolationist, and then there are those magic two words: gold standard.

I was thinking of mentioning him - notice I also left Gingrich out of my list too. Paul has not won a primary - he came close to winning the caucus in Maine - Gingrich has won one and looks like he won't win another (maybe Georgia?).

I was thinking about what looks like the most likely out come of the Republican primary. At this point it doesn't look like Paul has a chance to take it over. It was not a reflection of who I thought the 3 best pols are.

Of course he could run as a third party candidate. He has a very loyal, non-traditional base. It would be a real wild card because so much of his base is young.

Personal, even if you add him to the mix, I think Obama is still clearly the BEST INDIVIDUAL in the race.

it doesn't matter who he appeals to in a broad base, he'll never be able to secure his own party's nomination. his international outlook borders on isolationist, and then there are those magic two words: gold standard.

I don't mind a little isolation, I think we meddle to much. But the gold standard thing is a problem.

it doesn't matter who he appeals to in a broad base, he'll never be able to secure his own party's nomination. his international outlook borders on isolationist, and then there are those magic two words: gold standard.

I don't mind a little isolation, I think we meddle to much. But the gold standard thing is a problem.

I'm not real clear on the Gold Standard thing. If he got elected, that's not something he could do on his own is it? Wouldn't he need congress?

I can't see a majority of congress being willing to go along with such a huge gamble in monetary policy - especially given how in the pockets of the financial industry they all are.

ron paul is a crackpot, plain and simple. He has a very simplified view of the world and loves conspiracies. In that respect his goldbug status is a symptom of his bigger problem, not the root cause. He's not hurting anyone as a congressman, but should never be elevated beyond that.

—

Ken Milano (before he went and edited this comment out to avoid the consequences of having wrote it) wrote:

That is a problem, but the idea of paying for our bills, instead of printing more money and borrowing more money is sound. He would never get us back to a gold standard, but I believe be more fiscally sound.

Its not just a problem, its indicative of his entire worldview. There is no theoretical reason why the price of milk (or anything, but gold) should be tied to the price, and therefore supply, of gold. full stop. Anyone, even laypersons, who takes the time to think seriously about the subject will come to that conclusion. That he has not says volumes about his fitness to operate the levers of power. His brand of crackpottery is fine as a congresscritter or for someone on a quixotic presidential campaign, but you dont need to be particularly smart to be a backbencher in congress.

—

Ken Milano (before he went and edited this comment out to avoid the consequences of having wrote it) wrote:

and according to Ron Paul's gold standard theories we should have already had crippling inflation. Yes, the way the govt. increased the money supply should have caused it.

But there is no hyper-inflation so his theories are wrong. Just like trickle down and supply side economics have been demonstrated to not work (for the majority, at least).

The problem with these guys is that their theories have become a matter of faith and no amount of evidence will convince them they are wrong. Also the recent calls for austerity in a demand starved economy are shown hollow in the cases of Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Greece. Their economies are contracting and their debt problems are even worse than when they started taking the medicine.

Basically you have to grow your way out of a recession and the best way to do it is through policies that benefit the lower and middle classes directly. Pretty simple but the republicans will try all sorts of flim flammery to get more tax cuts for Mitt Romney.

—

stein wrote:

It is nice to be so privileged that you can be oblivious to a pretty popular stereotype in the canon of racism.